Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically embed media (requires automatic parsing of links in text to be on).

Rate Thread

If you like, you can add a score for this thread.

Topic Review (Newest First)

01-26-2002 08:52 AM

Lefty

President Bush, while showing excellent leadership in rallying our country after Sep. 11, has returned to his republican roots of being anti-enviromental protection. Sad. Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him? Now there was a repub that knew what stewardship meant.

01-16-2002 06:08 PM

pmflyfisher

Will be sending e-mails to IL senators and House Reps for sure.

Recommend others do also.

It is easy to find their e-mail addresses and send to them

01-16-2002 08:06 AM

Dble Haul

Here is the entire article from yesterday's New York Times. Sorry about the length, but the link expired.

<<WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 The Bush administration announced today that it would ease some Clinton administration regulations covering wetlands and streams, saying the changes would reduce unnecessary paperwork.

John Studt, chief of the regulatory branch of the Army Corps of Engineers, said the revisions "will do a better job of protecting aquatic ecosystems while simplifying some administrative burdens for the regulated public."

The steps outlined today by the Army Corps angered environmental advocates, who accused the administration of capitulating to the interests of developers and miners and jeopardizing ecologically sensitive areas.

The new rules would streamline the approval of certain development projects by giving more of them a green light under a general nationwide permit. That permit authorizes a developer to proceed and avoid levels of scrutiny by the public and federal agencies responsible for resource management if the project is said to have minimal impact on the environment.

Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman, said the Army Corps, which is completing a five-year updating of its permit criteria, continues to embrace a policy that requires developers to replace or set aside wetlands to offset their projects. The policy that there should be "no net loss" of wetlands was enunciated in 1989 by President George Bush and has been embraced by his son.

"The president is fully committed to the `no net loss of wetlands' policy that was reaffirmed today by the Army Corps of Engineers," Mr. McClellan said.

He noted that last week Mr. Bush committed the federal government to co-finance an $8 billion plan to restore the Florida Everglades.

Under the changes announced today, developers will not be required to provide a one-for-one replacement for the acreage affected by individual wetlands projects, as long as that goal is met in the broader region.

Under the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps is responsible for granting permits to anyone who seeks to drain or fill wetlands or streams. Wetlands are viewed as an important filter to the water supply, a rich habitat for plants and animals and a valuable release site for flood waters.

In March 2000, the Clinton administration increased restrictions under the general permit program affecting wetlands, limiting the amount of stream bed that may be disrupted without closer review and demanding closer scrutiny of activities in flood plains.

Those revisions are rolled back under the new approach. The Army Corps makes a new distinction between perennial and intermittent streams and relaxes rules on filling streams that do not flow year-round. It eliminates some restrictions on flood-plain development and gives local officials greater authority to approve surface mining projects.

Environmental groups said the administration, under pressure from home builders and coal miners, was reducing its oversight role in the name of slashing bureaucracy.

"It seems like the folks who are dredging and filling in the wetlands have more friends than they used to," said Howard Fox, the managing attorney of Earthjustice, an environmental law firm.

Julie Sibbing, the wetlands lobbyist for the National Wildlife Federation, said the Army Corps had forsaken the goal of achieving no net loss of wetlands.

"This arrogant move demonstrates the Corps' complete lack of respect for our country's natural resources and is another example of how this administration is turning its back on protecting our nation's wetlands," Ms. Sibbing said.>>

01-16-2002 08:02 AM

Dble Haul

Sorry about that. I'll try to find it elsewhere and paste it here. That'll learn me to link to Yahoo Daily News!

01-16-2002 07:50 AM

Roop

Mark,

The link to the article is dead. I don't suppose you copied it?

Thanks.

01-15-2002 08:55 PM

pmflyfisher

Yes agree this is not good.

Looks like a definite concession to the mining and timber industries to start so called low impact projects without submitting paperwork for review and approval prior to starting.

Wetlands are important sources of many rivers and lakes.

Have to write an e-mail to our congressman on this. Then get the boilerplate e-mail back from them. At least they will know that some one cares though.

Hal

01-15-2002 08:05 PM

Dble Haul

White House to relax wetland regulations

The article from the New York Times is too long to post here, but here's the link:

The quote about doing this to save unecessary paperwork is especially troublesome. Don't they know that wetlands are a key component in the water cycle of this planet? Let's hope someone listens to the voice of reason here.